To the low CC/small bike crowd that recommends bikes to ppl.

Message

Unnamed · #51 Unread post by **Unnamed** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:15 pm

camthepyro wrote:
Unnamed
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject:
Actually Zootech all the water in the world could sink a ship without getting inside. If the ship was a submarine and went too deep the pressure could crush it and make it sink.

So maybe you're saying "but the water has to get inside before it sinks!"

But, even if the hull is crushed perfectly evenly, all the water in the world would easily make it so small that the air remaining inside couldn't possibly make it float, and thus it would sink.

Thus, 1000cc sportbikes are too much for beginners.
I'm sorry, but that example has pretty much no relevency to this topic...

No relevancy? Or so much relevancy that you can't even comprehend it?

It is a mystery....

Shiv · #52 Unread post by **Shiv** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:54 pm

...speaking in real world terms here there's no way the hull could be strong enough to contain the air enough to have the air compressed so small that it would stay in the hull for very long. It would eventually explode and rip the hull apart.

So I think the mystery is solved in the relevancy field.

grampi · #53 Unread post by **grampi** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:10 am

This example might help to clear things up. Let's say I'm traveling down a two lane highway at about 60-65 mph going up hill with my wife on the back of my Honda VTX 1800 and I want to pass a vehicle in front of me. This bike has so much spare power that all that's required to make the pass is a twist of the throttle. No downshifting required. Doing the same manuver on a 600 cc bike would require a downshift of at least one, if not two gears. Riding the big cc bikes isn't all about massive acceleration all the time. Most the time it's just about having an abundance of power available at any speed, in any gear, at any RPM. This is something that just can't be provided by the smaller cc bikes.
_________________
BMW M535i

#54 Unread post by **Sev** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:26 am

Funny, I can snap the throttle in 6th on my 600cc detuned bike and acheive passing speed without an issue with or without a passenger.

Or I can drop a gear and do the same thing but faster.

High_Side · Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:34 am

ZooTech wrote:2) One day I was cruising along on my way home from work doing about 75mph when I came upon a Pontiac Grand Prix in the passing lane doing maybe 65mph. I moved over to the right and started to pass, which apparently pissed this guy off for some reason, so he took off, determined to not let me pass. Despite dropping from 6th to 4th and landing smack in the meat of the bike's powerband, I got my "O Ring" handed to me by a 2-ton sedan with a 3.8 liter V6.

I've said it before but this proves it even more: Your Nighthawk was ill. I (more than most) can appreciate the torque that comes with a bigger bike, but your Nighthawk was not giving you anything like it should have been capable of doing. It was a much faster bike then that when new.

High_Side · Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:51 am

Sevulturus wrote:Funny, I can snap the throttle in 6th on my 600cc detuned bike and acheive passing speed without an issue with or without a passenger.

Or I can drop a gear and do the same thing but faster.

Jeff, you need to ride a big twin. It's not the same. Having the ability to torque through turns in the mountains with a choice of many different gears to go fast with is addicting. A 600cc four is a fast bike, many of which are faster than my 1000cc twin. It's a different kind of ride however; you have to dance on the gearshift to really go fast. This is fun in it's own right but not as satisfying for some as having a broad spread of power. I hate to sound like an old Harley campaign put you "have to ride one to understand". If I can add to this I'll say put in an 8 hr day in the mountains on one to understand.

BubbaGump · Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:53 am

If you're a responsible rider - one nice thing about having more power/torque is that it can get you out of sticky situations in a hurry should the need arise. Going faster isn't always a bad thing if done under the right circumstances.

old-n-slow · Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:57 am

Pretty funny thread really. Both sides have good points. Bottom line is that we are all different and like different things. Good thing too. How boreing would life be if we all liked the same thing. Imagine a world where 99% rode honda shadow 750's (or whatever). Yikes.

I can honestly say I have a 650 cc bike and a 900 cc bike and they both produce around the same horsepower and performance. Given a choice I'll ride the bigger bike every time. Is that because I can't push the smaller one to it's limits? Give me a break. I have no intention of pushing either bike to it's limits and I suspect most riders don't either.

Most riding I do is highway or faster intercity roads. The large bike handles wind gusts better and gets the same milage or better then the smaller one. The larger bike feels so much more stable at highway speeds even though the smaller bike can deliver legal limit speeds all day long without significant effort.

One thing I can't recall seeing mentioned here is that the bigger bike delivers its power at a lower rpm then the smaller one. Somehow that equates to a more relaxing ride to me. The higher revs give me the impression that I'm mounted on a large chain saw whereas the thump thump of the v-twin produces a lower frequency rumble. Much more relaxing.......... and that's why I ride.

#59 Unread post by **Sev** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:58 am

High_Side wrote:
Sevulturus wrote:Funny, I can snap the throttle in 6th on my 600cc detuned bike and acheive passing speed without an issue with or without a passenger.

Or I can drop a gear and do the same thing but faster.
Jeff, you need to ride a big twin. It's not the same. Having the ability to torque through turns in the mountains with a choice of many different gears to go fast with is addicting. A 600cc four is a fast bike, many of which are faster than my 1000cc twin. It's a different kind of ride however; you have to dance on the gearshift to really go fast. This is fun in it's own right but not as satisfying for some as having a broad spread of power. I hate to sound like an old Harley campaign put you "have to ride one to understand". If I can add to this I'll say put in an 8 hr day in the mountains on one to understand.

Does this mean you're offering me a 100+ cc v-twin for a weekend?

I'll take it. Let me know when/where I can pick it up.

Or just a ride through the mountains would be fun

BubbaGump · Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:01 am

old-n-slow wrote:One thing I can't recall seeing mentioned here is that the bigger bike delivers its power at a lower rpm then the smaller one. Somehow that equates to a more relaxing ride to me. The higher revs give me the impression that I'm mounted on a large chain saw whereas the thump thump of the v-twin produces a lower frequency rumble. Much more relaxing.......... and that's why I ride.

Just a guess here, but it probably also means you have to eat less fibre too!